Question about self defense (delicate topic, please play nice)

In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :

I've been penned in a couple times at work trying to reach buses that were caught up in protests. Both time it was the PD trying to escalate things and the crowds remarkably restrained. The second time I got threatened for calling out some awful behavior that should not have been going on. At one point I took out my phone to get some pics of what was going on for my boss and was given a line of E36 M3 about how I could lose my job for taking photos of ongoing police activity. 

wae said:

I'm going to say 5 pages before the lock and I'll put my money on the under.

My guess is that the police would be protected under the wing of qualified immunity.

Congratulations everyone, we made it to page 5

I've had a random thought floating around in my head these past couple of months, maybe it's a good one maybe not:

What if we got rid of entirely or at least changed the current crop of law enforcement based entertainment shows from the typical rolling gun battle a minute / lone wolf renegade misunderstood hero theme they all follow to something closer to real life?  Not exactly Adam 12 on the screen anymore... Oh that's right, wouldn't be "entertaining" anymore.     Probably a stretch but I wonder if some of the real cops sometimes think they're OK because they've seen it on the boob tube so many times.   Discuss if you like.

In reply to 11GTCS :

I will tell you this right now after 10+ years full-time law enforcement that Reno 911! is the closest show to reality. From the officers to the "criminals" it is much closer than any action-drama made. 

In reply to cabbagecop :

one of my all-time fav shows

I'm not a big fan of cop shows. I really enjoy Reno, Longmire (if that counts), and The Andy Griffith Show (which does not count in this century, lol), but Cops, the First 48, etc.... Zero interest for me.

Wally (Forum Supporter) said:

wae said:

I'm going to say 5 pages before the lock and I'll put my money on the under.

My guess is that the police would be protected under the wing of qualified immunity.

Congratulations everyone, we made it to page 5

One of the few times that being wrong doesn't bother me a bit!

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

My issue with the Andy Griffith Show is that it paints this idealistic portrayal of law enforcement of the past.The same time frame of The Andy Griffith Show in real life had the Dallas Shotgun Squads and New York Stakeout Squads as just a few examples of things that would cause a stroke to the general public nowadays. Remember prior to Tennessee V. Garner (1985) it was perfectly legal and in fact encouraged in most areas to shoot fleeing felons.

I will add that Law Enforcement is extremely regional in nature. There are probably places in the US that are way more similar to the Andy Griffith show even today than to some run & gun action show. 

In reply to cabbagecop :

 

Some Florida Laws (every state is different) for you on riots. Also to add a note in Florida "Stand Your Ground" only covers you if you had a legal right to be there so basically once a riot has been declared and a dispersal order has been made you no longer are there legally. 

870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.—If any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled in any county, city or municipality, the sheriff or the sheriff’s deputies, or the mayor, or any commissioner, council member, alderman or police officer of the said city or municipality, or any officer or member of the Florida Highway Patrol, or any officer or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, or beverage enforcement agent, any personnel or representatives of the Department of Law Enforcement or its successor, or any other peace officer, shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to them as may be with safety, and shall in the name of the state command all the persons so assembled immediately and peaceably to disperse; and if such persons do not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, said officers shall command the assistance of all such persons in seizing, arresting and securing such persons in custody; and if any person present being so commanded to aid and assist in seizing and securing such rioter or persons so unlawfully assembled, or in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly, refuses or neglects to obey such command, or, when required by such officers to depart from the place, refuses and neglects to do so, the person shall be deemed one of the rioters or persons unlawfully assembled, and may be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

870.05 When killing excused.—If, by reason of the efforts made by any of said officers or by their direction to disperse such assembly, or to seize and secure the persons composing the same, who have refused to disperse, any such person or other person present is killed or wounded, the said officers and all persons acting by their order or under their direction, shall be held guiltless and fully justified in law; and if any of said officers or any person acting under or by their direction is killed or wounded, all persons so assembled and all other persons present who when commanded refused to aid and assist said officer shall be held answerable therefor.

Thank you cabbagecop, I think that is the best answer to the OP’s question. I realize this is for Florida, but likely similar elsewhere. 

Now if you disagree with the law, then you need to talk to your legislator or vote for someone that agrees with you. Maybe start a protest about protests.:) Just remember that a change in the law would apply equally to groups that you disagree with. 

Not to take this too far off track, but a number of people have commented that you don’t always know when a protest turns into a riot. True, but ignorance has never been an excuse to disobey the law. Once a protest stops becoming a protest, leave. Your chances of something bad happening to you go up the longer you stay. Staying also shows  support for the transition of the protest to a riot, and provides cover for the bad actors. 

But at some point we need to be a bit honest. I’m sure most protesters want their voices heard peacefully, especially initially. I understand the importance of getting the message out. Both for speech that I agree with, and especially for speech that I disagree  with. I believe good ideas flourish in the light, while bad ones are exposed and wither away. But at some point protesters need to be honest with what they are trying to achieve. Bringing attention to something that needs it? Great. How about when that issue is already the #1 topic in the country. Are we really getting the word out with our speech? Not really. Showing support for the cause? Sure. Bad actors start to hijack the protests, and many of the protestors support and cheer their actions. If they don’t want the actual police to step in with the tactics that they disagree with, then they need to self police. Which ironically is something that many are protesting for, yet failing at their own protest. Many of the protests are in cities where the local governments agree with the protesters and are actively trying to change laws. Are those protests still about getting their voices heard, or about fighting cops? Maybe a little of both, but to circle back to the original topic, it can’t be both, the definition of the assembly defaults to it’s worst behavior. 

If the protesters truly just want their voices heard in a peaceful manner, they need to leave when the bad actor show up. “Sorry guys, you ruined the party. We won’t be your cover, you guys can go fight the cops without us. Wait, where are you going? The cops are over there.”

Assembling peacefully to have our voices heard is one of the most important freedoms we have. But assembling to break stuff, start fires, and hurt people is not that, there are other definitions for that. No matter how noble you believe the cause, just remember that the law recognizes your actions not your cause. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

So basically, if protesters went by what you just explained, leaving once a bad actor commits a bad act. Then the best way to shut down a protest is to insert a bad actor. 

Additionally, another way to put the protest and protesters in negative light is to insert bad actors. 

Good tactics to mute the voice of a cause. Very interesting. I wonder if they've thought of that yet. 

What should the protesters do if the bad actors happen to be the police?  Or govt?

KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to bobzilla :

Recently here in Kentucky a peaceful protest was boxed in by police until night fell at which point they were "breaking curfew" and the authorities moved to arrest everyone.  

I assume there are bad actors on all sides, but the ability of the powers that be to unilaterally change the rules on the fly bothers me.  It should bother anyone who values their freedom, not simply willing to accept what is given to them.

Exactly what happened in Richmond. Mayor had a curfew established for 8 pm. There was a nice peaceful protest going on around the Lee statue... 7:30ish hit and the cops rolled in with teargas claiming the curfew had been changed to 7 pm. Later they pepper sprayed a guy through the window of his house...

Mr_Asa said:

DrBoost said:

Mr_Asa said:

An obviously unarmed girl approaching 30+ cops, and they decide to point a bean bag loaded shotgun at her point blank?  Yeah, that is 100% damning.

Arrest her, I agree that she's being stupid.  Point a shotgun at her?  Nah, man.  I don't see it

I only see one that could be pointed at her, the man on the wall with the tree branch close to him. The others are pointing downrange. The officer that looks to be pointing directly at her head is not on the same plane (x axis) as her. If he fired, it would go over her left shoulder. 

There are multiple angles of the same event.  He is pointing at her.

Please post one. In the photo posted, he is pointing over her shoulder, and she's not even close to him. Using that photo to say the cop is pointing at her in close range, is 100% stirring the pot. 

Here's the original post of the photo describing the scene. Edit I'm pretty sure she was in the process of walking forward.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

So, if a shotgun was "pointed at you" (in your direction? ) at that range then you'd feel....? 

Looks like she's trying to record them on her phone but def not doing anything wrong or threatening. She certainly don't look like a threat though. But, then again, using maximum force necessary is more common than it should be. 

And that's a cop? E36 M3, they look like me when I was in Afghanistan in 2013. Last time I remember, petite white women weren't hiding suicide bombs under their spaghetti strap top here in America. 

Here's the whole sequence from the original photographer on another page. Provides more context for the day.

Scroll down to Day 2

In reply to yupididit :

I'm not here to get into a debate on any of that, I'm just pointing out photo angles can paint whatever picture is needed for the agenda. 

In reply to yupididit :

 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

So basically, if protesters went by what you just explained, leaving once a bad actor commits a bad act. Then the best way to shut down a protest is to insert a bad actor. 

Additionally, another way to put the protest and protesters in negative light is to insert bad actors. 

Good tactics to mute the voice of a cause. Very interesting. I wonder if they've thought of that yet. 

What should the protesters do if the bad actors happen to be the police?  Or govt?

Within reason, unfortunately, yes. You know very well that I didn’t mean when one guy does one thing. But once the protest goes south, and is no longer a protest, it’s done. You can argue about who did what in a cloud of tear gas, but that won’t solve anything. The key word is reason. Some idiot throws something at a cop? Whether the idiot is a bad actor for the cause, or an opposing instigator trying to shut down the protest, the smart response for the peaceful protesters would be the same. Step back, and let the police deal with the bad actor or instigator, without interference. 

The problem is that many otherwise peaceful protesters cheer the bad behavior. Many, who now in my opinion have lost peaceful protester status, obstruct the police from arresting the attacker. While I don’t doubt that there are some agitators, who are cowards and scum in my book for trying to silence others through deception, the vast majority are sympathizers or opportunists that don’t care either way but enjoy the chaos. It really doesn’t matter their motivation. Peaceful protesters are foolish to not only allow, but to promote the behavior. If peaceful protesters stop supporting the behavior, it goes away. Your example of opposing agitators strengthens my point. Why would the crowd fall into their trap and make themselves look bad? Do you think the violence and chaos is winning over any more support to the cause? 

As for the police or government being the instigator? I’m sure it happens, and that sucks, and should be reported, investigated, and remedied legally. But be honest, what are the numbers- 1 out of 100, 1 out of a 1000? How many times has an officer done nothing in return after being hit with a rock, brick, explosive, spit, urine, you name it- for every unprovoked attack on a civilian? Don’t get me wrong, one is still one too many, but once again- the chaos provides cover. False reports provide cover. Showing an officer wrestle down a suspect without showing him get hit with a brick first- provides cover. Waging war against police in the streets and then complaining about the outcome? Doesn’t sound like a solid plan. Once again- most of the confrontations are taking place in cities with governments sympathetic to the protesters. So who are they fighting against? It’s as if they just want police officers to stand in a line and get plinked with rocks and bricks while they stand there smiling.

People are funny creatures. Each one of us has different limits as to when we will engage in certain behaviors. Very few of us- say 1 in 100 to make it easy- will be the first one to break a window or throw a brick. Once #1 acts, 3 or 4 more will join in. The next group has a bit higher threshold. They wait and see what happens to the first guys before they pick up rocks. On it goes until otherwise normal people reach the point where they feel comfortable joining in. The SF Super Bowl example someone gave is a great illustration. Letting rioters riot only invites more of the behavior, and both agitators and law enforcement know this. In the end, the peaceful protestors have a vested responsibility on how they handle their protest. If they allow their peaceful protests to get hijacked, again, and again, and again- they are complicit. They have the power to solve the problem. And like most other solutions to complex problems, it’s not always easy or fair. 

Sparkydog said:

I was in San Francisco the night they won their first Super Bowl.  My buddies and I went out into the streets after watching the game in a bar. I think we were on the edge of Union Square. Whatever name it had - there were 100's of other people showing up too and the crowd was growing. Everybody was happy and cheering. We were on the edge of the square. A family was trying to drive down a street in their car and got caught in the rapid swelling of the crowd. I'm pretty sure they were not sports fans and probably weren't even aware of the Super Bowl. They were just minding their own business trying to drive down the street.

Suddenly some guy jumps up on their car hood and starts yelling. Was he yelling at them or was he yelling for joy at the victory of his team? The driver of the car looked scared. Then more people started rocking the car and jumping on it. The occupants got out of the car and ran. We were no more than 50 feet from this car. More people from the crowd (none of whom could have possibly known one another) started rolling the car over. This all happened in 3-5 minutes. The minute that car went over a weird vibe flowed over the surrounding crowd. I've never felt that weird vibe before or since. It was (in my opinion) some kind of primal energy flow that we're no longer aware of in our daily lives.

And just like that... a riot broke out.

A bunch of parked cars started getting attacked. We turned around and ran away from that area of town and got clear of the square and were safe. In spite of being young and drunk I guess we were also a little bit smart. But we were on the edge of the crowd so we could leave as we wished. Somebody in the middle of the square would have had a difficult time getting out and away. The next day the news said the riot escalated into a serious thing with police, fires, arrests etc.

When I see protesters on the news and read the things we are discussing in this thread I always think about that night in San Francisco and how quickly us male homo sapiens can go to the dark place and become violent for nothing. That riot did not start out of a protest or a political rally or a march for anything. It. Just. Started. And in 2020 I also think about how easy it would be for someone who knows about the dark vibe, to be at the scene of a protest and ready to exploit it. And I also think about how all those LEOs, with all their gear and technology and comms - are still basically a bunch of male homo sapiens with the riot/violence pixie just waiting to be let loose. 

I've heard many similar stories but Sports team joy turning to violent destruction is a phenomenon I will never understand. Add it to the list I guess. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Ah okay. Thanks for the clarification on what you meant. 

Personally, I don't think peacefully protesting works anymore. Been doing it for decades and what do we have? Appeasement at best. Voting looks like a wash.

I do wonder whats next and what will invoke real change. So far, I think its a miracle that the oppressed haven't revolted and decided to MAKE change happen vs asking the oppressors to change. Though nicely asking has never gotten anyone anywhere on this type of matter 

We shall see though!

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to yupididit :

I'm not here to get into a debate on any of that, I'm just pointing out photo angles can paint whatever picture is needed for the agenda. 

Agreed, painting a picture does wonders for your narrative no matter your stance. And if you have a long reach then even more powerful 

1988RedT2 said:

But I really don't think people have any clue as to what things would be like without police.  Think about it.

Except the vast majority of people don't want to get rid of the police. They want reform not no police. I mean there are some crazies who may want to get rid of the police but that isn't the majority.

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

I was thinking more of SWAT, the NCIS franchise and shows similar to that.   We used to watch a lot of Law and Order years ago, I enjoyed the detective work “drama” but some of the current shows defy logic. 

I grew up in a small town, it was a long time ago, upper middle class and admittedly not diverse.  That said, we knew the cops, they knew us and their kids were our classmates.   There has to be a way for there to be more community based interaction between citizens and police officers.   As stated above, police officers are civilians too.   Healthy human relationships and common goals could go a long way to improve things from where they are now.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwinCities/comments/i0vqde/yeah_well_i_forgot_my_mask_in_the_car_he_told_me/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Kind of a tangent but kind of not.  "Rules for the but not for me" is a real E36 M3ty way to be.  If you dont know the mayor of minneapolis and the governor has a mandatory maks order when inside.    Way to set an example bro. 

yupididit said:

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to yupididit :

I'm not here to get into a debate on any of that, I'm just pointing out photo angles can paint whatever picture is needed for the agenda. 

 

Agreed, painting a picture does wonders for your narrative no matter your stance. And if you have a long reach then even more powerful 

Looks to me like she was videoing the person on the ground getting arrested right behind the barricade. 

  People are known to attack LEO's who are arresting their friends so there is a reason for distrust of anyone approaching.

 As for Shotgun cop, if the only tool  you were given is a hammer then every problem starts to look like a nail.   

Using Verbal judo training goes a long way to slow down hesitant aggressors but it does require training and also agreement that it is the first thing to try. 

As for when a peaceful demonstration turns into a riot:  

  In a fast breaking situation all the problems look like nails. Imagine playing football but every player has a knife when the center hikes the ball.  Imagine how fast that could turn into a bloody mess.   This is how fast riots turn into bloody messes.  

  Maybe the bad actors are ANTIFA/BLM doing the Maoist thing of guerrillas hiding in a school of fish so no one knows who they are until the attack signal is given and its too late for the peaceful people to get out.   Maybe there are agent provocateurs in the crowd sent by rogue government agencies to start violence so the peaceful protest permit is revoked.